This article introduces an analytical framework to trace and compare leaders' different types of behaviours to the health crisis posed by COVID-19, following the analytical benefits of Leadership Trait Analysis. It examines Boris Johnson's and Nicola Sturgeon's diverging initial responses to the pandemic's onset. We employ the Leadership Trait Analysis to shed light on three main differences in their respective leadership styles: risk-proneness versus risk-aversion; flexibility versus rigidity and rule advocacy versus rule ambivalence. Crises are one of the more fruitful situations in which to study leaders as their personal characteristics become central to the decision-making process. Thus, we employ an agent-centred and political psychology approach to analyse leaders' behaviour and make sense of their divergent management styles. The results show that the differences between these leaders' approaches to handling this global health crisis can be partly explained by their level of openness to information and their task versus relationship focus.

The COVID-19 global pandemic is understood to be a multidimensional crisis, and yet undertheorised is how it reinforced the politics of dehumanisation. This article proposes an original framework that explains how dehumanisation undermines the human dignity of individuals with minoritised socio-economic identities during the COVID-19 pandemic. The framework identifies four interrelated mechanisms of crisis-driven dehumanisation: threat construction, expanded state coercion, reinforcement of hierarchies, and normalisation of deaths. The article argues that an understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for capturing the complexity of human rights deterioration during the COVID-19 pandemic. The article uses the plausibility probe method to demonstrate macro-processes of dehumanisation, with illustrative empirical examples from diverse societies during COVID-19. It proposes a framework for understanding these dehumanisation processes that can apply to other transnational crises.

The equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines is one of the most important tests of global cooperation that the world has faced in recent decades. Collectively, global leaders failed that crucible abysmally, creating a 'vaccine apartheid' that divided the world according to income into countries with widespread access and those without. Why, given that leaders were fully aware of the risks and injustice of vaccine inequity, did governments of wealthy countries hoard doses, impede the expansion of vaccine manufacturing and otherwise prevent equitable access to vaccines? We argue that their decisions to act selfishly are best explained by governments' accountability to domestic constituencies, their lack of leadership and commitment to multilateralism and their adoption of short-term perspectives, as well as their unwillingness to curb the influence of profit-oriented global pharmaceutical companies and, to a certain extent, of an additional private actor, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Scottish government's plans for a minimum unit price for alcohol were vehemently opposed by the alcohol industry leading to a 6-year delay in implementation after legislation was passed. This article seeks to explain the consequences of devolution and European Union membership for the development of minimum unit price in Scotland through the concepts of multi-level governance, veto points and venue shifting. Systems of multi-level governance create policy interdependencies between settings, an increased number of veto points at which policies can be blocked, and the potential for policy actors to shift decision-making to forums where favourable outcomes are more likely to be attained. In the minimum unit price debates, the alcohol industry engaged in multiple forms of venue shifting and used regulatory compliance procedures and legal challenges at the EU level to try to prevent and delay the policy. This has led to a 'chilling effect' on subsequent alcohol policy developments across the United Kingdom.

The unconventional nature of Holy See diplomats rests in the composite character of their ecclesiastical role as the Pope's representatives and their legal diplomatic status and commencement to ordinary diplomatic practice. Holy See diplomacy is a form of conduct created by a set of mixed secular and religious standards in which agents are guided by practices. I locate this argument within a classical English School and a conventional understanding of practice, diplomacy, and agency while incorporating understandings of the diplomat as a stranger. The article situates a Holy See diplomat's mode of agency as a hybrid one by nature, located at the intersections of political and religious modes of agency and substantial and relational conceptions of international politics. I probe this conceptual framework of hybrid agency by analysing episodes involving papal diplomats in turmoil-ridden historical episodes, and correspondence with informed agents.

This article studies the effect of parliamentary involvement on security policy. Building on Democratic Peace Theory, it examines whether democracies with a parliamentary veto power are indeed less likely to participate in military interventions, than democracies without such a veto power, ceteris paribus. By studying patterns of participation across 25 to 35 countries in five military missions, this paper finds modest evidence for such a parliamentary peace and suggests that it depends on the character of the military mission in question. If a mission is framed as a test case of alliance solidarity, as was the case with OEF and the Iraq War, domestic institutional constraints can be trumped by alliance politics. If, however, countries enjoy more discretion in deciding on the use of force, domestic constraints such as parliamentary war powers have a tangible impact on government policy.

Combining the literature on sovereignty and Europeanisation, this article investigates the engagement and impact of the European Union (EU) on contested states (states lacking recognition) through a comparative study of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) and Palestine. We find that characteristics of contested statehood mediate EU engagement and impact: the lack of international recognition limits EU's engagement but encourages development promotion, international integration and assistance of local civil society. Lack of territorial control limits engagement, but ineffective government offers opportunities for development promotion and state-building. As such, and in addition to offering a rich empirical account of two prominent contested states, the article contributes to the discussion of international engagement by developing an innovative conceptual framework for understanding EU's impact on contested states-a topic neglected within a literature dominated by conventional statehood or conflict resolution themes but very important given extensive international engagement in contested states-and related conflicts.

Research Highlights and Abstract This article: Covers new empirical terrain in the study of depoliticisation, with an in-depth case study of health technology regulation;Analyses depoliticisation from a novel analytical perspective, examining how depoliticised institutions are resilient to external pressure for politicisation;Posits a distinctive framework for analysing resilience, drawing on cognate literatures on policy networks and agencification;Raises interesting and distinctive questions about the nature of depoliticisation in advanced liberal democracies, arguing it is more contested than commonly acknowledged. Depoliticisation as a concept offers distinctive insights into how governments attempt to relieve political pressures in liberal democracies. Analysis has examined the effects of depoliticisation tactics on the public, but not how those tactics are sustained during moments of political tension. Drawing on policy networks and agencification literatures, this article examines how these tactics are resilient against pressure for politicisation. Using an in-depth case study of the controversial appraisal of cancer drug Herceptin in 2005/6 by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the article examines how 'resilient' NICE was to external politicisation. It is argued that NICE was resilient because it was effectively 'insulated' by formal procedures and informal norms of deference to scientific expertise. This mechanism is termed 'institutional double glazing'. The conclusion suggests developments to the conceptual and methodological framework of depoliticisation, and highlights theoretical insights into the nature of 'anti-politics' in contemporary democracies.