Central banks around the world are increasingly shaping, as well as following, broader climate policies, a development we theorize as policy coordination. In this chapter, we study how and why the European Central Bank (ECB), previously narrowly focused on its primary objective of price stability, has moved towards more extensive coordination with the political institutions of the EU. Based on an analysis of actual policies and views held by ECB top officials, we trace the evolution of the practice and ideological backing of ECB coordination with fiscal and climate policies. Our findings document an interesting paradox: although the ECB has increasingly engaged in policy coordination, it has done so on a unilateral basis by choosing on its own whether, when, and with which economic policies it coordinates monetary policy. We refer to this practice as “independent policy coordination”. Analysed against recent case law by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the legal limits to independent policy coordination are only vaguely defined. As it is notoriously difficult to distinguish independent policy coordination from autonomous policymaking by the ECB, we conclude that multilateral coordination, to the extent it remains compatible with the primacy of price stability, would be the next logical step.

Chapter 2 examines changes in colonial mercy proceedings from the late 1940s to the 1960s, and the tensions that arose between decolonisation and British involvement in determining the fate of condemned prisoners. These tensions were apparent in cases from British Guiana, Malaya and Kenya, among others, but in the immediate aftermath of British abolition they were especially pronounced in the Bahamas, which had a constitutionally advanced system of internal self-government and where, in 1968, British ministers prevented the execution of two prisoners whom locally elected political leaders and the governor had decided should hang. Analysis of these cases reveals the dynamics of death penalty culture and political debates in the Bahamas and demonstrates that Britain could not divorce itself from the ramifications of colonial capital cases, even as successive British governments remained formally committed to the Creech Jones doctrine that they should not interfere in determining the fate of condemned prisoners.

This chapter discusses the contested place of the Declaration of Independence in black political thought. As a document that provided a rationale for American independence, the Declaration of Independence in its own way also provided one for black political equality in the United States. This tension between intention and interpretation has made the Declaration stubbornly immune from attack by black intellectuals, politicians, and movement leaders. With rare exception, the Declaration has been attacked mostly for its exclusivity, not its content or core ethos. Even Critical Race Theory’s (CRT) modest dissent from the Declaration has been limited in its ability to transform the persistence of black support for it, making arguments for CRT’s abandonment of America’s founding principles ring hollow. Instead, the history of black political thought from Frederick Douglass to W. E. B. Du Bois to Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, stands squarely on the side of the Declaration’s essential truths, while admonishing America’s enduring failure to live up to them.

The scholarly discussion of Kant’s republicanism focuses heavily on his ‘negative’ conception of freedom: independence or not being subject to another master. What has received much less attention is Kant’s ‘positive’ conception of freedom: being subject to one’s own legislation. This chapter argues that Kant’s positive conception of external freedom plays a crucial role in his Doctrine of Right: external freedom in the negative sense (mutual independence) requires and is realized by freedom in the positive sense (joint self-legislation). After first discussing the ‘innate right to freedom’, it is shown that, on Kant’s account, this fundamental right is realized fully only when external freedom is realized in both senses and in all three spheres of public right. Any satisfactory account of Kant’s republican theory must complement the focus on independence with an emphasis on citizenship and joint self-legislation.

This chapter explores how the Declaration of Independence was drafted and ratified. Congress created and assigned the task of drafting a declaration of independence to a committee of lawyers. When the draft went to the Congress, lawyers like Edward Rutledge had their chance to weigh in. The draft document and the final version was a legal document designed to place rebellion on a legal foundation. Jefferson later recalled that his draft of the Declaration of Independence merely recombined ideas that had long been discussed, and terminology long adopted, by Congress. The Declaration assumed independence, otherwise it would have had no foundation. Following this logic, as the members did, surely Jefferson among them, the Declaration was simply stating the reasons – a justification like the Declaratory Act of 1766, by which Parliament explained its authority over the colonies – for an event already transpired. The ringing elaboration of the rights of mankind, various borrowings from John Locke, echoes of natural law, and the language of prior resolves and declarations were not really pertinent to a declaration for the independence of a continent, but make sense in the more limited framework of Virginia constitutional change.

Chapter 5 offers a critical reappraisal of King’s Pan-Africanist credentials, challenging prevailing interpretations that downplay his alignment with Pan-Africanist thought. While some, like George M. Houser, have argued that King was not fundamentally a Pan-Africanist, and others, such as Lewis Baldwin, have emphasized his integrationist leanings, this chapter contends that King’s extensive advocacy for African independence and unity positions him squarely within the Pan-African tradition. Through a nuanced exploration of definitional debates and King’s unique approach, the chapter invites renewed scholarly discussion regarding his place in the broader history of Pan-African theory and praxis, revealing how his vision both reflected and shaped the perspectives of Black Americans in his era.

Chapter 3 delves into King’s deepening engagement with the international liberation of African-descended peoples from March 1957 through early 1961. Central to this discussion is King’s sermon “The Birth of a New Nation,” delivered after his return from Ghana’s independence celebrations – a moment that profoundly shaped his worldview. The chapter chronicles King’s subsequent travels to Nigeria at the invitation of Governor-General Nnamdi Azikiwe, further solidifying his identity as an “Africanist.” His active participation in the American Committee on Africa (ACOA) and collaboration with prominent activists such as George Houser and Bayard Rustin are examined as pivotal to his organizational and ideological maturation. This period marks the crystallization of King’s Beloved Pan-Africanism, as he forged powerful connections between domestic and international struggles for justice.

This chapter traces the progression of nationalist writing in Wales and Scotland from the Popular Front fiction of the 1930s through to the devolved nations of the twenty-first century. Raymond Williams’s changing position on the nationalist question is charted and related to the work of the political theorist Tom Nairn. Williams is further analysed in the second half of the chapter as an indicative case study of a creative writer who drew on the legacy of the 1930s writers in order to tackle the centralist tendencies of English literature. In the process, Williams himself became a protagonist in the devolution struggle and is portrayed as such in John Osmond’s Ten Million Stars Are Burning (2018). The chapter concludes by discussing why documentary approaches, such as Osmond’s novel and James Robertson’s And the Land Lay Still (2010), are important to the fictional representations of the struggle for Welsh and Scottish independence.

This introduction provides an overview of the theories and methodologies necessary to reveal the social, economic, and political lives of Afro-descended Mexicans after the abolition of slavery and caste. Beginning with the cofradía del Rosario in what is now Morelia, it sets the stage for the collection by showing how references to Afro-descended communities continued after independence in 1821. The introduction argues that the limited sources about Afro-descended Mexican citizens do not preclude the study of these communities after emancipation. Instead, it requires careful, often against the grain, readings of racial identities as well as of individual and collective agency, historical themes related to slavery and freedom that are better known in the colonial period. Ultimately, the introduction attempts to provide a roadmap for future studies into the history of Afro-Mexicans in the nineteenth century.

After gaining independence in 1821, the Mexican government passed laws that abolished the transatlantic slave trade to Mexico in 1824 and the institution of slavery in 1829. While these dates are concrete, the process and implementation of both laws entailed more complexity than these firm dates suggest, and created real and perceived consequences for inhabitants in Mexican territories. This chapter argues that abolition was a contentious social and political process that placed settlement, citizenship, and freedom at the forefront of discussions for the nascent nation in the 1820s and 1830s. The chapter also argues that the process of abolishing slavery in Mexico was steeped in colonial history and set the stage for contentious individual and collective action through the national government in Mexico City and the state/local government of Coahuila y Tejas from 1821 to 1836.

This chapter describes how the creation and functioning of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights are shaped by the colonial past and its impacts on political norms and legal culture. It shows the ACtHPR’s decisions are characterized by minimal deference, as it commonly rules against states, abstains from restrictive interpretation, and issues intrusive remedial orders. The chapter connects the ACtHPR’s nondeference to its subtle political constraints. Specifically, the Court has a broad strategic space due to its relatively high formal independence and politically fragmented membership. These factors combine to enhance the Court’s legitimacy and suggest that collective state resistance is impracticable. Yet following exit from aspects of the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court defers more. The Court’s nondeference is facilitated by the Court’s practices of persuasive argumentation and public legitimation. The chapter also suggests the African Court’s support network cannot fully account for the observed minimal deference.

This chapter analyses the different procedural grounds of review and to what extent they may lead to annulment of an administrative decision by an international administrative tribunal. It shows that principles initially developed for court proceedings now play a crucial role also in administrative procedures. Although terminology and application may vary among IATs due to differences in administrative practices, there is mutual influence in their approaches.

The British monarchy has withstood numerous crises in its long history, including American independence. Loyal for most of the eighteenth century, many British North American colonists turned against monarchy from 1774 to 1776. The formation of extralegal organizations combined with the diffusion of print media created a Revolutionary infrastructure that advanced the transformation from monarchy to independent nation. Independence spurred not only iconoclasm but also the resurgence of popular Loyalism on both sides of the Atlantic. It inspired enslaved men and women to issue their own embodied declarations of independence by running away as well as other marginalized groups such as women and working-class men to assert their rights. Independence forced Indigenous nations to weigh whether an alliance with European monarchical powers or the new American republic would best secure their interests. By the late 1780s, some elite Americans turned to British and monarchical models to reassert a hierarchical social and political order.

This chapter traces the historical trajectory of Algeria’s relationship with the EU from the post-Second World War period and Algerian independence, to the present. It examines key agreements and legal frameworks, shedding light on how the colonial history produced complexities in defining Algeria’s status in relation to European integration. The narrative extends to explore broader geopolitical initiatives such as the Euro–Mediterranean Cooperative Proposal, the Union for the Mediterranean, and the European Neighbourhood Policy, and assesses the effectiveness of these policies in addressing issues like migration, security, and border control. The study highlights the evolving nature of the Euro–Algerian relationship, emphasizing its multifaceted character beyond economic interests. In navigating this relationship, the analysis underscores the importance of a nuanced approach, considering the diverse interests and challenges faced by both Algeria and the European Union in the context of Euro– Mediterranean relations.